Re: trace_recovery_messages

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: trace_recovery_messages
Date: 2010-08-18 19:23:02
Message-ID: 9048.1282159382@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The explanation of trace_recovery_messages in the document
> is inconsistent with the definition of it in guc.c.

Setting the default to WARNING is confusing and useless, because
there are no trace_recovery calls with that debug level. IMO the
default setting should be LOG, which makes trace_recovery() a clear
no-op (rather than not clearly a no-op). There is circumstantial
evidence in the code that this was the original intention:

int trace_recovery_messages = LOG;

The documentation of the parameter is about as clear as mud, too.
We need to explain what it does rather than just copy-and-paste
a lot of text from log_min_messages.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2010-08-18 19:53:31 Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-08-18 19:07:59 Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this?